A Win-Win Transit Solution for Toronto Cherise Burda and Graham Haines February 17, 2011

A transit solution for Toronto TTC and Metrolinx are developing a new transit plan for Toronto: a compromise between subway extensions and more cost- effective light-rail transit. This is the Pembina Institutes analysis of the options on the table and our recommended best compromise transit plan for Toronto.

A win-win transit solution: Serves four corners of the city Offers an appropriate mix of subway, LRT, surface and underground Is fiscally responsible matches ridership with required capacity Prioritizes projects that can begin construction now Is cost effective aims for highest ridership per dollar invested Minimizes car lane loss to transit lines

Funds are limited A transit plan should aim to bring rapid transit to the doorsteps of as many Torontonians as possible. Dollars spent unwisely in one area means less money for the rest of the system.

Recommended Compromise Plan

1.Finch West Express: New surface LRT line 2.Eglinton Crosstown: New hybrid surface and underground LRT line 3.Scarborough Subway: Extension of the Bloor- Danforth subway to replace the current SRT 4.Sheppard East: A hybrid line that includes: – Underground subway or LRT on Sheppard from Don Mills to Pharmacy – Surface LRT between Pharmacy and Meadowvale

1. FINCH WEST EXPRESS 11 km of new surface LRT rapid transit line on Finch Cost: $0.9 billion

FINCH: Relief for a crowded bus Finch West 36 is currently the busiest bus route in Toronto and will only get busier. Current bus service cannot support the demand Finch needs rapid transit with greater capacity and frequency

FINCH: Rapid transit to those who need it most Finch is the highest and fastest-growing population of low-income, immigrant, single-parent and youth populations in the city. Many of these residents cannot afford vehicles and have to travel further to find employment. Currently are the most underserved by rapid transit Lack of transit access is a main cause of increasing poverty in these areas. Providing rapid transit would help to reverse this trend.

FINCH: Cost effective The Finch surface LRT is the most cost effective transit line on the table. Finch is an 11 km bargain for less than $1 billion Compare this to 8 km of Sheppard subway at $3 billion

FINCH: Cost-effective options Right-of-way bus rapid transit (BRT) Half the cost Can be implemented quickly, and replaced by LRT over time However….Would not provide the needed capacity: – Projected ridership: 4,500 people per hour per direction – BRT maximum capacity: 3,000. – LRT capacity: Over 8,400 Speed and attractiveness of LRT brings in more new riders than a BRT Therefore, LRT for Finch is recommended in this compromise plan

Comparison: Transit options for Finch Finch Transit Options Speed km/h CapacityProjected Ridership Rush hour riders 2031 Cost/km $2010 Billions Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) ~ Light Rail Transit (LRT) ~ – 25,200* *8400 for one-vehicle trains; 25,200 for three-vehicle trains operating at crush load (280 passengers per vehicle)

FINCH: It makes sense The most cost-effective transit line on the table Serves the largest low-income population that needs transit Right-of-way rapid transit line would not take away lanes of traffic away from vehicles – (Except for 300 metres at the CPR bridge)

2. EGLINTON CROSSTOWN Surface LRT between Kennedy station and Jane St; underground currently between Laird and Black Creek Drive Cost: $4.9 billion

EGLINTON: Time to build, not debate Eglinton has broad support as a priority line Groundwork has been done, including time- consuming environmental assessments Boring machines have been bought and paid for and construction can begin now on the underground section Phase One of the Crosstown is fully funded by Metrolinx

EGLINTON: Highest projected ridership Proposed transit lineProjected peak ridership 2031 Eglinton Crosstown7,800 Scarborough RT6,400* - 7,600** Finch West4,500 Sheppard East3,100* – 5,300** * peak ridership for LRT ** peak ridership for subway

EGLINTON: Linking the City Eglinton Crosstown creates a complete link across the city. Begin with the 11 km underground section, and consider how best to complete the additional 8 km of phase one Phase 2 (not included in this plan) would eventually connect the Crosstown line to Pearson airport

3. SCARBOROUGH SUBWAY 8 km extension of Bloor- Danforth subway to replace aging SRT New routing, runs from Kennedy Station to Sheppard Ave E (connects with Sheppard E LRT) Cost: $2.4 billion

SCARBOROUGH SUBWAY: M inimizing surface disruption SRT is aging, running at overcapacity and needs to be replaced. A Scarborough LRT (proposed under Transit City) would upgrade the current SRT; a Bloor-Danforth Subway extension would build along a new route. Therefore a subway would minimize disruption for riders, because current SRT could continue to function while the subway is being constructed.

SCARBOROUGH SUBWAY: Capacity and cost For cost-effectiveness, subways require minimum peak ridership of 10,000 to 15,000 people per hour per direction Projected peak ridership of Scarborough is: However, ridership could increase by: – Linking with the Sheppard LRT would bring higher ridership (part of our proposal) – Linking with the Danforth-Bloor subway line

SCARBOROUGH SUBWAY: A costlier compromise option Cost of Scarborough LRT: $1.8 Billion Cost of Scarborough Subway extension: $2.4 Billion Subway is more expensive but comes with benefits: – Service can continue on existing SRT during construction – Cost more comparable to underground LRT than a subway on Sheppard – Higher potential ridership on Scarborough Subway relative to cost – Link to Sheppard LRT link could increase ridership and further justify cost and capacity

4. SHEPPARD EAST A hybrid line that includes: 2 km of subway or underground LRT from Don Mills to between Victoria Park and Pharmacy – Cost: $0.5 billion 9 km above-ground LRT from Victoria Park/Pharmacy to Morningside – Cost: $0.8 billion

SHEPPARD EAST: Cost effectiveness Subway will cost over four times as much per kilometre as LRT Eight kilometres of Sheppard subway would consume 1/3 of the total available transit budget for the next ten years

SHEPPARD EAST: Capacity and fiscal responsibility For cost-effectiveness, minimum peak ridership (people per hour per direction) – Subways: 10,000 to 15,000 – LRT: 3000 to 5300 Projected peak ridership (Sheppard, 2031): 3,100 to 5,300 Population is not sufficient to support a subway

SHEPPARD EAST: win-win solution for drivers and transit riders A full Sheppard LRT would lose 1.5 km of traffic lanes east from Consumers Road Therefore, extending the underground section from Don Mills to Pharmacy retains all traffic lanes No traffic lanes will be needed to accommodate surface LRT from Pharmacy to Morningside

SHEPPARD EAST: A fiscally responsible option Sheppard Express hybrid line of 2 km underground (LRT or subway) and 10 km surface LRT Removes no traffic lanes One-third of the cost of the proposed subway Serves 1.5 times more people than proposed subway

SHEPPARD EAST: Options in perspective Sheppard East options LRT (Phase 1) SubwayHybrid Line Length (km) 128 Cost ($2010 billions) $1.0$2.9$1.3 Cost per km ($2010 millions) $85$360$113 Traffic lanes removed (km) 1.500

RECOMMENDED COMPROMISE PLAN: Overview Balances mix of subway, LRT, underground and surface rapid transit Serves all four corners of the city Matches appropriate transit capacity with population density and projected demand Fiscally responsible Environmental assessments complete on Eglinton Crosstown, Sheppard East and Finch West Express work can commence

RECOMMENDED COMPROMISE PLAN: By the Metric Proposed lines bring rapid transit to the doorsteps of 440,000 Torontonians Will bring rapid transit to 32,000 low-income people Will remove between 90,000 and 120,000 cars out of gridlock Will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 143,000 tonnes

Meeting the budget This compromise solution: $9.6 * billion ** Most recent funded (LRT) plan on the table: $8.7 * billion Extra cost of compromise solution is due to added underground subway and subway yard (if needed) *2010 dollars non-accelerated **Additional $500 million may be required if a new rail yard is needed to service Bloor- Danforth extension (Scarborough Subway)

Meeting the budget Additional funds are needed to ensure a balanced plan that services the citys regions fairly and brings a compromise to subway and LRT supporters. Shortfall could be financed by various levels of government: Federal, Provincial and/or Municipal. Any private financing agreements via future development charges should be made for transit projects that match ridership with capacity and are low risk.

Appendix 1: Transit plans in perspective Proposed Subway Extension 4 LRT Priority Projects Phase 1 Compromise Solution Length (km) Cost ($2010)$6.2 billion$8.7 billion$9.6 billion Cost/km$344 million$167 million$192 million Torontonians served * 185,000460,000440,000 Low Income population served 11,00033,00032,000 Cars out of gridlock 60,000-80,00080, ,00090, ,000 GHGs removed75,000132,000143,000 *within 500 m of a transit stop

LineLength (km) Cost ($2010-B) Cost/km ($2010-M) Torontonians served* Low-income population reached Scarborough (SRT) LRT (Phase 1) ,0005,900 Scarborough (SRT) Subway to Sheppard ,0004,800 Scarborough (SRT) Subway to SCC ,2003,600 Sheppard W. Subway (Yonge to Downsview) ,0002,800 Sheppard E. Subway (Don Mills to SCC) ,0004,800 Sheppard LRT (Phase 1) ,4007,200 Finch LRT (Phase 1) ,1007,600 Finch BRT (Phase 1) ,1007,600 Eglinton Crosstown (Phase 1) ,80012,000 Eglinton Crosstown – underground section only ,2007,000 Appendix 2: Line comparison – cost and service